On Monday, December 24, 2012 17:25:05 Monarch Dodra wrote:
> That's the way the ddoc is generated anyways: Everything on the
> left.
Which should probably be fixed IMHO. Regardless, in Phobos or druntime, if
const is found on the left, it gets moved to the right.
- Jonathan M Davis
On Monday, 24 December 2012 at 15:52:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2012 14:32:55 monarch_dodra wrote:
"ref" is a function qualifier, not a type qualifier, so you
could
even write it as:
"const(ReturnType) foo() const ref;"
So technically, it is symetric.
I'm pretty
On Monday, December 24, 2012 14:32:55 monarch_dodra wrote:
> "ref" is a function qualifier, not a type qualifier, so you could
> even write it as:
> "const(ReturnType) foo() const ref;"
>
> So technically, it is symetric.
I'm pretty sure that ref is nonsensical in that example. What would ref on
On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 15:05:16 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 14:55:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Namespace:
Shouldn't we fix this? Most of the Newcomer are confused with
the fact,
Take a look in bugzilla. I opened an enhancement request to
fix this situation, but
On Sunday, December 23, 2012 21:34:25 Namespace wrote:
> > No one has been able to convince Walter. He thinks that the
> > consistency of
> > allowing function attributes on both sides trumps fixing the
> > problems caused by
> > having const or immutable on the left.
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
>
No one has been able to convince Walter. He thinks that the
consistency of
allowing function attributes on both sides trumps fixing the
problems caused by
having const or immutable on the left.
- Jonathan M Davis
It is more confusing than anything else but as I said I would
waste my time wit
On Sunday, December 23, 2012 15:41:09 Namespace wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 13:37:33 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
>
> wrote:
> > On 23.12.2012 14:20, Zhenya wrote:
> >> @property const ref int bar() const
> >
> > The first const does not bind to the return type, but to the
> > whole decla
Namespace:
So what should I waste my time with "war" with my limited
english knowledge ? ;)
But thank you, that you tried it.
Your English improves if you want it, and you exercise yourself.
And such "wars" are not always useless, because while Walter is
very experienced and usually strong
On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 14:55:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Namespace:
Shouldn't we fix this? Most of the Newcomer are confused with
the fact,
Take a look in bugzilla. I opened an enhancement request to fix
this situation, but Walter has closed it down. The rationale is
to keep uniform t
Namespace:
Shouldn't we fix this? Most of the Newcomer are confused with
the fact,
Take a look in bugzilla. I opened an enhancement request to fix
this situation, but Walter has closed it down. The rationale is
to keep uniform the way D manages tags like const, immutable, etc.
I don't agre
On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 13:37:33 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 23.12.2012 14:20, Zhenya wrote:
@property const ref int bar() const
The first const does not bind to the return type, but to the
whole declaration, so it does the same as the const at the end.
You should use
@
On Sunday, 23 December 2012 at 13:37:33 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 23.12.2012 14:20, Zhenya wrote:
@property const ref int bar() const
The first const does not bind to the return type, but to the
whole declaration, so it does the same as the const at the end.
You should use
@
On 23.12.2012 14:20, Zhenya wrote:
@property const ref int bar() const
The first const does not bind to the return type, but to the whole
declaration, so it does the same as the const at the end. You should use
@property ref const(int) bar() const
13 matches
Mail list logo
